Arianna's Huff

by Milo Clark

January 19, 2004

A friend in New Zealand asked about Arianna Huffington's recent piece in
AlterNet, "Unelectable, My Ass!" (1) She deplores the Demycrap and Republicrat
attacks on Howard Dean. She cites Robert Kennedy's aborted 1968 campaign as
being more relevant to Dean's candidacy than McGovern in 1972. Overall, I agree
with her. The attacks on Dean are unconscionable. A puzzling lose-lose strategy.
I like the quote she attributes to Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR). "The test of
our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much;
it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

For my Kiwi friend, I drop back for perspective.

Huffington is a rolling paradox slammed into a conundrum. Her former personas
are less than inspiring no matter what she says now. Ever the opportunist, it is hard
to trust that she will not do another chameleon act tomorrow. Molly Ivins or Jim
Hightower is more consistent. Arianna gets off some good jabs, nevertheless.
That said, she is perceptive regarding the Dean assault now in high pitch. However,
expressed, the Demycraps have quite thoroughly lost perspective or connection.
The quote from FDR is instructive regarding that loss.

Regarding Bobby Kennedy, we need to note that he was assassinated under
circumstances and with motivations as obscure as those of his brother. We will also
note that since Republican President McKinley was shot (2) at the turn of the 20th
century, only Democrats have been assassinated. The man who shot McKinley had
a known political perspective. He was an Anarchist.

I need to take a few more steps back to find some perspective, though.
First, the political spectrum is not a two dimensional line from right to left. Right
and left, per se, as political references have lost all meaning. As Wilhelm Reich
demonstrated in The Mass Psychology of Fascism, which was written in the context
of late '20s, early '30s Germany during the transition from Weimar Republic to Nazi,
the political spectrum is a circle with a tiny gap between Red Fascisms and Black
Fascisms.

An essential characteristic of both Red and Black Fascisms is the absolute
compulsion to control far beyond merely authoritarian, despotic and tyrannical.
Totalitarian is the word now commonly used.

Leo Strauss, the Republican Neo-Cons' guru, reduced this to a simple formula: Take
control at any price. Keep control at any price. Keep that formula in mind and use
it as a gauge.

Secondly, given the emergent primarily electronic technologies of the 20th and 21st
centuries, a parallel phenomenon has to do with use of these technologies as melded
into the attendant mentalities of those who control them. Media owners and media-controlling executives show an immense need to control. They are well aware of
their power. And it is a raw, quite naked power lust that drives them. Call it
advertising, public relations and/or propaganda; these processes are analogous to
the differences between authoritarian, tyrannical and totalitarian control systems.
William Randolph Hearst was an autocrat. Rupert Murdoch is a totalitarian. His
reach and tools are systemic.

That media ownership and control happens to be bedded too closely with those who
have seized control of the Republican Party may be coincidental, accidental or
simply propitious.

Third, parallel processing again, note the development of corporate structures now
supplanting governments as centers of societal organization and operations. An
absolutely crucial factor is the emergence of the attendant legal structures which
have served to put corporations beyond law and, going further, through their
immense resources and staffs in control of legal processes. In the United States, the
critical step was the equation of corporations and their legal status as and with that
of individuals. As such, then, corporations drape themselves in the protections
embodied in the Constitutional guarantees subsumed under the ten amendments to
the original 1787 Constitution called the Bill of Rights.

Given two hundred years plus of case law appended to the vast structures of English
Common Law, a now impregnable construct prevails. Corporations in the mega-national forms are now the closest approximation of world government we are ever
likely to create. Corporations, unlike the political structures of geo-national entities
previously taken to be governments, are autocratic, authoritarian, despotic,
tyrannical, totalitarian -- take your choice. They share a critical characteristic with
drug traders and terrorists: borderless and trans-national. Some corporate structures
may be relatively benign, even benevolent in some senses of those words. There is,
however, no requirement to be thus. Laws once possibly relevant or restraining such
as Taft-Hartley are now administratively gutted.

Fourth, pay attention to Leopold Kohr's admonitions related to size. Everything, in
essence, has its natural limits or size. If exceeded, the relevant structures will
implode. Notice he uses the concept of implosion as opposed to explosion. They
will collapse unto themselves. Critical variables relate to "when," i.e., timing. While
this general set of probabilities is quite ignored by analysts, activists, and anarchists
who are fixated on revolutionary endgames Kohr's concept is descriptive of much
of what is evolving. Orwell was nibbling around aspects of these constructs with
Animal Farm and 1984. Daniel Quinn is likewise on target with his series of books
which began with Ishmael. I can name others, many of whom are using fictional
forms to communicate perspectives. John Toland's Gods of War is a classic.

Fifth, take note of historian John Lukacs' prophesy that the late 20th and early 21st
centuries would be witness to a resurgence of barbarity.

Those in the USA who have now seized control of the Republican Party, as only
one focus of the processes in process, go back more than a few years. In a fuzzy logic
sense, the attitudes involved, the congealing of mindsets over time are as inherent
in the governmental structures emergent from the 1700s as they are presently
apparent. The now-sainted founders of this geo-national construct feared
democracy or mass rule. See the history of Alien and Sedition Acts now come
forward to the Patriot Act of 2001.

They restricted the franchise to relatively affluent property owners. They built in a
theoretical balance of power, now long abrogated but hanging around in
appearance. Much as in corporate structures, the executive branch has emerged as
beyond effective reach of either electorate or shareholders. Stakeholders is a
common buzzword these days. Whether electorate, shareholders, or stakeholders, all
are irrelevant in actualities, but useful for obscurations.

Voting, actually not voting, reflects the judgment of too many. Not voting forwards
the agendas of those who have seized power. The demographics of those who vote is
quite skewed from those who register and even more so when compared with those
eligible to vote.

Now and then, in some token senses, when corporate excesses exceed excessively
for a short period, there are feints toward corrections as now seen with Enron et al.
The recently enacted Campaign Finance laws have already been made irrelevant as
well as turned to advantage by Republican strategists.

We are now told voting irregularities will be minimized by computerized voting
systems. Actuality, perhaps available to some degree after the fact, will likely show
an opposite result. Look at Georgia's strange 2003 gubernatorial election. Even if the
machines prove more honorable than Caesar's wife, registration processes remain
corruptible and politicized by both major parties. At this point, the degrees of
corruption may be exponential in process. As Strauss suggests, keep power by any
means.

As illustrated rather blatantly in 2000 with the anointment of George W. Bush,
control of appointments to the Supreme Court is a critical variable. That fact alone
makes preventing Bush's possible election quite compelling. It will take generations
to undo the chaos of an eight year Bush reign.

The Senate's role to advise and consent in judicial appointment, noise aside, has
been eroded by executive persistence. The current Supreme Court has a majority
who will, when required, support a Republican Party executive Executive on
political matters. Much as corporate boards of directors are shadows of their
executive management so is the present US Supreme Court a political shadow
more than a relevant balance within the Constitutional structures still in place.

To continue, an essential element of emergent control processes is embedded in
media, those physical means by which advertising, public relations and propaganda
are delivered. These means are more and more electronic in nature as even print
media are now constructed and produced electronically.

Yes, there is a potential wildcard in Internet and Web evolutions. Of note is the role
of spam -- unsolicited advertising. Through efforts nominally to counter spam we see
openings to external, i.e., governmental (now meaning corporate), control of the
Internet. "Parental control," as an illustration, is one avenue to censorship. In
parallel, postal rates now serve to limit, hence control, alternative media in terms of
market access. Restrictions to market access translate into restrictions of political
process, i.e., control.

I'll go a bit farther. History has virtually disappeared as a subject which may be
offered in educational institutions, particularly through secondary school levels, i.e.,
tax-supported schools. What little still trickles in is very much controlled by
political processes. Textbook selection processes nearly universally within the 50
states have been taken over by those of a similar mind to those who have taken
control of the Republican Party. What remains is mytho-history at best -- politically
tainted mytho-histories for sure. Look at evolution and sexuality as topics distorted.

Many years of non-random parallel processes are coming to fruition in interacting
seizures of American forms and practices of governance and mass market
ideological control. Under Bush II, the security state has escalated exponentially.

It helps to stop now and then to remember that the sainted founders established a
republic, not a democracy. The control points established lie within the legal system,
on one side, and through the filter of the Electoral College on another. At several
instances within American history, those who voted in a presidential election
named an individual who was subsequently denied office through Electoral College
processes.

To repeat, those who will judge are now effectively under executive control as
noted. The Court system is thoroughly politicized. The balances of power are
irrevocably tipped.

Those who control American media, through ownership or effective executive
reigns, especially mass market media, rarely, if ever, would be characterized as
democrats or even republicans although they may name their political allegiances as
capitalized versions of one or the other.

A rhythm or cycle of American media appearance has emerged over time. It is
tuned to the political cycles of elections. Typically, local elections are set to avoid
the four-year cycles of national Presidential elections. They may coincide with the
two-year cycles of national Congressional elections or they may use off-year timing.
The intent was to minimize the influence of national politics on local elections.

Budgetary and political actualities are gradually muting these separations. Coat-tail
politics are anathema to some and the way it should work to others. Those who will
control as absolutely as possible are more and more addicted to coat-tail elections.
That is, to coincide local and state elections with the national cycles so that
national propaganda will aid local candidates who align themselves appropriately.

A recent chilling statistically-valid survey of those who voted in the 2002
Congressional elections revealed that they received less than 20% of their
information about candidates and their positions through television "news"
broadcasts. 80% came through advertisements: 60-, 30-, and 15-second hits.

Add in one more factor. Electoral districts related to the national House of
Representatives, state legislatures, and local councils are theoretically to be
determined by the ten-year cycle of national census. Once every ten years, after the
census results are available, electoral districts may need be redrawn to reflect
changes in population. That is, an increase or decrease in numbers of people within
a state would be reflected in proportionate changes in Representatives, i.e.,
Congressional districts, at the national level.

This process has become sullied over time by gerrymandering, redrawing districts to
increase the probability that a particular party will be favored. Whichever political
party happened to control a state legislature and executive would jigger district
boundaries to match demographics considered favorable to that party.
Gerrymandering, to varying degrees, became an American norm.

There were some vague, once generally accepted and somewhat loosely understood
restraints on the most excessive applications. It was assumed that redistricting
would only happen in relationship to the national census, that is, every ten years.
That restraint has been cast aside by those who seized control of the Republican
Party. As illustrated by blatant recent cases in Texas and Colorado, Republican-controlled legislature/executive combinations have tailored Congressional districts
to guarantee increased numbers of Republicans elected.

An examination of the manipulations within Florida in preparation for the 2000
presidential election is revealing. The Governor of Florida then and now is Jeb
Bush, brother of George. Ms. Harris, a Bush devotee who headed the relevant state
office in control of electoral processes from registration through voting, worked
carefully to reduce the numbers of potentially Democratic Party voters through
delaying, losing or canceling registrations as only one tactic. The famous chad
problem coupled with an awkward ballot layout or organization which muddied
votes cast is relatively well-known.

Almost instantly, when results were seen to be close, a modern-day version of
Brown Shirts flooded Florida to intimidate local election commissions. Republican
bigwigs with Texas imprimaturs stormed in to manipulate the courts. With some
courage, the Florida Supreme Court, in obedience to the shadow principle of
nullification (i.e., States' Rights) ruled that state law prevailed. The ordered recount
should proceed to completion and under State law. The politicized US Supreme
Court, in a very messy decision, overruled States' Rights, the Florida Supreme Court
and stopped the recount. US Supreme Court rulings have no appeal possible
outside of congressional action post facto. Hence, George Bush was anointed
President by one vote, cast by a Republican Supreme Court Justice.

American political history has established a norm related to close elections. It was
generally assumed that an administration installed by a close election or by the Electoral
College rather than popular plurality would be restrained in its purely partisan
processes. The word commonly applied is "Bipartisan." We will note that the Bush
people hit the road with a blast of partisan processes which has accelerated with
time. With Newt Gingrich's Republican Congressional victories in 1994, the stage
was set for extreme partisanship. Since then, the worst has gotten worse. Bad
grammar, nevertheless descriptive.

To return to the media cycles related to national elections, media follow a four-year
pattern. After a presidential election, the first subsequent year's editorial direction
would be relatively open to varieties of reporting. Readers would see a more
balanced presentation. Seemingly contrary or atypical "news" would get better
presentation, more space, more time, placement to the front of the publication or
broadcast and some times above the fold and toward the right edge (the most
scanned placement in newspapers). This process served to lull readers and to mute
criticism. As local or Congressional elections came along in the two year cycle, the
balance would shift toward more and more partisan play of "news" and reporting.
Editorial and Op-Ed ranges of opinion would constrict accordingly. After the
Congressional two-year cycle, there would be some return to the more
balanced-appearing layout and organization of material to be printed or broadcast. Gradually,
as the combined presidential and congressional election approached, the games of
propaganda would become less subtle and more open. I could describe in detail the many ways to do these
things. Rest assured that these cycles are in effect. Now more than ever do I notice the clues of bias and timing.

Which brings me full circle to Dean-Bashing. Anyone who in the judgment of
media owners may represent a potential opposition candidate beginning at local
levels is presented within the contexts of the overall cycle. The history of such a
person will be colored in ever deeper tones of negativity throughout their career.
Should they reach national level politics, the taint will be deeply established within
the minds and attitudes of readership, listenership or viewership of the relevant
media. Should someone slip through and get too big too soon, media will go into a
full-court press to chop down that person.

Hence Dean bashing of the moment. Vermont is a tiny New England state with few
people, little impact on national or even regional politics. Dean was okay but not
outstanding as governor. For contrast, look back at how Ed Muskie was destroyed
by a savage assault on his wife in the Manchester (NH) Union-Leader newspaper,
a bastion of rabidly biased Republican invective. He cried. Crying is weakness in
men. Q.E.D. Muskie is weak. End of Muskie's ambitions.

Those who somehow have survived or been elected are all in some significant way
tuned into these cycles. Their actuality has a strong influence on them. So strong
that established office holders understand how much their incumbency is a factor of
media processes. Note that the strongest Dean bashers among presidential hopefuls
tend to be incumbents. With media consolidation, that influence is stronger than
ever. As corporate structures supplant government and corporate executives
consolidate control, personal political biases of a very few individuals determine
actualities. Arianna, Molly and Jim get no play in the Manchester Union-Leader, which is a paragon of political biases now more typical of media as a whole.

Do you wish to share your opinion? We invite your comments. E-mail the Editor. Please include your full name, address and phone number. If we publish your opinion we will only include your name, city, state, and country.